A wife must stay quiet and submissive. Change my mind.

[Ken]

I've been in conversation with conservative Mennos and ex-conservative Mennos who are either questioning or rejecting these teachings because the harm it's caused in their own lives. I think that any kind of rigid order can easily be abused or misused. Even in the best cases, this teaching has a tendency to infantilize women and elevate men into "headship" who may not be competent or suitable for the role.

I've known elderly women who were so dependent on their husbands that after their husbands died, didn't know how to to basic life tasks, like how to pump gas into their car. I can't imagine how a rigid order that gives some people power or demands others submit simply on the basis of their genitalia doesn't end up enabling abuse.

It goes both ways. My grandmother died before my grandfather and he was basically helpless when it came to a whole other set of basic life tasks like how to feed himself, fold his clothes, clean a kitchen, shop for anything. He expected his adult daughters to tend to his needs rather than learning how to do basic stuff himself. Which was no small source of friction in the family as they all had their own lives and families and were annoyed by the fact that he was so intentionally helpless but at the same time so demanding. This was years ago, but as I recall, they all got sick of him and banded together to hire a housekeeper to keep his house in order. Since he wasn’t going to do it himself.

[Neto]

Responding to Neto, I think every good marriage is complementarian to the extent that everyone brings different strengths and weaknesses into each relationship. I don’t think those are necessarily the stereotypical male and female roles either. My wife and I have settled into a comfortable division of labor that sometimes matches traditional sex roles, and sometimes doesn’t. I like cooking more than she does, for example. On the other hand, she is more social and keeps us more engaged with friends, neighbors, relatives, etc. If were not for her, we’d probably barely have any friends. We do share the big decisions though, like how to raise our kids, our big ticket financial decisions. I would not want it any other way.

I think part of finding a good partner in life is finding someone who complements your strengths and weaknesses. But I think that is different from what is commonly meant by complementatianism from a conservative religious perspective which is more bound up in traditional sex roles that I don’t think are necessarily even biblical.

I DID use the word "complementary", and to some degree that word probably came to mind because of the complementarian vs eglatarian debate, but I also wouldn't follow either side of that completely. My father-in-law was very authoriatarian, my own father was not, especially in the area of the "force" with which "advice" was given to adult sons (like over 60 years old). My Dad gave advice when asked, but seldom gave unsolicited advice, even from the age of 18 or so. I'm not actually familiar enough with that whole debate to have an opinion regarding whether I would feel that some elements of "complementarianism" are less than Biblical. Maybe the best answer to the question posed in this thread is "It's complicated."

I am pretty sure that some of my "good qualities" that made me "of interest" to my wife are also some of the same traits that sometimes cause her frustration. Not being "overbearing" can look exactly like "indecisiveness", depending on the attitude of the observer. Too much listening, and not enough action, or "taking responsibility".

Some of our fellow translators - married couples - some of the wives barely spoke the language to any appreciable degree, because of the roles they assumed from early on in their work. If there were small children involved, some wives took on that entire responsibility, and so they had very little time to interact with the people. Some might feel I took too much the opposite track, but I determined to do enough in those perhaps unconventional roles of child rearing and household chores that my wife would not be left behind. I still DID learn the language better, but I think that was mostly due to my greater role in the Bible translation itself. (She translated the 3 letters from John, the book of Jonah, and did nearly all of the preparation work for the Genesis abridgement, and, as I recall, all of that same task on the other 4 books of Moses, which were written from scratch, not from an already prepared copy, as was Genesis.)

[Ken]

Responding to Neto, I think every good marriage is complementarian to the extent that everyone brings different strengths and weaknesses into each relationship. I don’t think those are necessarily the stereotypical male and female roles either. My wife and I have settled into a comfortable division of labor that sometimes matches traditional sex roles, and sometimes doesn’t. I like cooking more than she does, for example. On the other hand, she is more social and keeps us more engaged with friends, neighbors, relatives, etc. If were not for her, we’d probably barely have any friends. We do share the big decisions though, like how to raise our kids, our big ticket financial decisions. I would not want it any other way.

I think part of finding a good partner in life is finding someone who complements your strengths and weaknesses. But I think that is different from what is commonly meant by complementatianism from a conservative religious perspective which is more bound up in traditional sex roles that I don’t think are necessarily even biblical.

I DID use the word "complementary", and to some degree that word probably came to mind because of the complementarian vs eglatarian debate, but I also wouldn't follow either side of that completely. My father-in-law was very authoriatarian, my own father was not, especially in the area of the "force" with which "advice" was given to adult sons (like over 60 years old). My Dad gave advice when asked, but seldom gave unsolicited advice, even from the age of 18 or so. I'm not actually familiar enough with that whole debate to have an opinion regarding whether I would feel that some elements of "complementarianism" are less than Biblical. Maybe the best answer to the question posed in this thread is "It's complicated."

I am pretty sure that some of my "good qualities" that made me "of interest" to my wife are also some of the same traits that sometimes cause her frustration. Not being "overbearing" can look exactly like "indecisiveness", depending on the attitude of the observer. Too much listening, and not enough action, or "taking responsibility".

Some of our fellow translators - married couples - some of the wives barely spoke the language to any appreciable degree, because of the roles they assumed from early on in their work. If there were small children involved, some wives took on that entire responsibility, and so they had very little time to interact with the people. Some might feel I took too much the opposite track, but I determined to do enough in those perhaps unconventional roles of child rearing and household chores that my wife would not be left behind. I still DID learn the language better, but I think that was mostly due to my greater role in the Bible translation itself. (She translated the 3 letters from John, the book of Jonah, and did nearly all of the preparation work for the Genesis abridgement, and, as I recall, all of that same task on the other 4 books of Moses, which were written from scratch, not from an already prepared copy, as was Genesis.)

I don’t do translating. But even that is a skill that isn’t really sex-linked. My wife is a wizard with languages. She speaks 5 languages fluently (Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, and Italian) and has such proficiency that she can do a dozen different accents in English even though it isn’t her first language (southern, New Yorker, Australian, British, etc.). And she can do dozens of accents in Spanish from rural Mexican or Cuban to upper class Spaniard. At best I have passable Spanish that is heavily tilted towards Rural Guatemalan Spanish because that is were I learned it. If we were going to be a translating family then my wife would most certainly have to take the lead.

I do think women are probably more natural caregivers for infants. And men are probably more proficient combat soldiers. But those are two extremes that aren’t really relevant to the majority of most people’s life experiences. I think most of marriage is figuring out how you and your partner best complement each other and I think those rarely align completely along stereotypical sex lines. In fact, our modern world with work outside the house is probably a lot different from how life way in biblical times anyway. I expect that carpenters, shepherds, farmers, shopkeepers, etc. mostly worked out of their homes in biblical times. And women were probably as likely to work outside the home as men. So most children probably grew up with both parents mostly around the home rather than the 1950s stereotype of the stay-home mom and absent father.

[Bootstrap]

I've been in conversation with conservative Mennos and ex-conservative Mennos who are either questioning or rejecting these teachings because the harm it's caused in their own lives. I think that any kind of rigid order can easily be abused or misused. Even in the best cases, this teaching has a tendency to infantilize women and elevate men into "headship" who may not be competent or suitable for the role.

If men pay attention to the words directed to them, and women pay attention to the words directed to them, I think this can be a very healthy teaching.

A lot of the problem comes in when the man insists that his wife submit to him, instead of doing what he is told - loving her, being considerate. And al of this is in the context of submitting one to the other, throughout the church.

[Ken]

I've been in conversation with conservative Mennos and ex-conservative Mennos who are either questioning or rejecting these teachings because the harm it's caused in their own lives. I think that any kind of rigid order can easily be abused or misused. Even in the best cases, this teaching has a tendency to infantilize women and elevate men into "headship" who may not be competent or suitable for the role.

If men pay attention to the words directed to them, and women pay attention to the words directed to them, I think this can be a very healthy teaching.

A lot of the problem comes in when the man insists that his wife submit to him, instead of doing what he is told - loving her, being considerate. And al of this is in the context of submitting one to the other, throughout the church.

And most words in the Bible (probably more than 99% of them) are directed at both men and women equally. I think some people and groups lose track of that, and the fact that sex roles are really a very small part of Christianity.

[Neto]

I've been in conversation with conservative Mennos and ex-conservative Mennos who are either questioning or rejecting these teachings because the harm it's caused in their own lives. I think that any kind of rigid order can easily be abused or misused. Even in the best cases, this teaching has a tendency to infantilize women and elevate men into "headship" who may not be competent or suitable for the role.

If men pay attention to the words directed to them, and women pay attention to the words directed to them, I think this can be a very healthy teaching.

A lot of the problem comes in when the man insists that his wife submit to him, instead of doing what he is told - loving her, being considerate. And al of this is in the context of submitting one to the other, throughout the church.

Your comment here reminds me of something I wrote in an email to my pastor last Sunday, after he referenced what he called "The Silence of Adam" in his sermon that day. (This view assumes that when it says of Adam "who was with her" that it means that he was right there with her when she was being tempted by the serpent. I think there is room to understand this to mean that he was there with her in the garden, but not right there at that instant. I'll just copy in what I wrote, then probably post the contents of the document I also wrote and sent to him in a second post, in consideration of the length.)

I would like to make a short defense of Adam.
If the Genesis account is chronological, then we can ascertain the following facts:
God gave the orders about the tree of good & evil to Adam, and not in Eve's hearing. (This statement assumes something on the basis of silence, so should be held with some reservations. That is, the Scripture records no instance in which God repeated the instructions about the fruit of this tree to Eve, or in her hearing, but it also does not say that God DIDN'T do this.)
So we may surmise that Adam told Eve about this injunction not to eat this fruit. (Again, an assumption based on the silence of Scripture, but one that would show that he was not 'silent'.)
The words 'who was with him' do not clearly state that Adam was with him at that instant; possibly only meaning that "Adam was with Eve in the garden", or "Adam was her companion." That is, the idea that Adam was with her at the moment of the conversation between the serpent & Eve is also an assumption, not clearly indicated in Scripture.

However, it can without doubt be said (I believe) that Adam chose fellowship with Eve over obedience to God, and fellowship with Him. But his choice resulted in a total loss.

I recently heard of a genre of film that was popular in the late 40's - "Filme Noir". In some movies you can assume that by the end, everything will be right, and everyone will be happy. (Typical of "Hallmark" movies.) By contrast, in the Filme Noir movies, in spite of the great (and reasonable) hopes of the main characters, everything always turns out badly. (The guy never gets the money, or the girl.) This is what happened to Adam. He clutched at Eve, and not only lost her, but he also, and more impactful, lost fellowship with God.

I think that this intersects with "Headship" in the sense that God's created order was at this point destroyed.

{Please see the attached Word document, where I quoted from several commentaries regarding Genesis 3:16.}

(This will follow in another post.)

[Neto]

Genesis 3:16

Keil and Delitzsch: …a desire bordering upon disease (from the word ‘to run’, to have a violent craving for a thing.
Kidner (Tyndale): The phrase your desire shall be for your husband (RSV), with the reciprocating he shall rule over you, portrays a marriage relation in which control has slipped from the fully personal realm to that of instinctive urges passive and active. ‘To love and to cherish’ becomes ‘To desire and to dominate’. While even pagan marriage can rise far above this, the pull of sin is always towards it. An echo of the phrase, in 4:7b, conjures up still more vividly its suggestion of the jungle.

Hamilton
The Hebrew word for urge or “desire,” tƒšûqá, occurs only here and in Gen. 4:7 and Cant. 7:11 (Eng. 10). In the Canticles reference it has a decidedly romantic and positive nuance, describing a feeling of mutual attraction between two lovers: “I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me.” In Gen. 4:7 it describes sin's “desire” for man. This desire man is to repulse and dominate. Interestingly, in all three instances the LXX has hë apostroph¥, “return,” apparently reading tƒšûþá for tƒšûqá. Perhaps the LXX failed to understand the Hebrew word correctly.
Given the pairing of tƒšûqã™ô and timšõl in 4:7, one suspects that the pairing of tƒšûqã™ë± and yimšãl should carry the same force, whatever that is. Here is a case where the clear meaning of 4:7 illuminates a less clear meaning of 3:16. What 4:7 describes is sin's attempt to control and dominate Cain. Because his offering has been rejected by God he is seething with anger. In such an emotional state he is easy prey for sin which crouches lionlike and waits to jump on him. Cain is to fight back, turn the tables, and dominate sin and its desire.
Applied to 3:16, the desire of the woman for her husband is akin to the desire of sin that lies poised ready to leap at Cain. It means a desire to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. The sinful husband will try to be a tyrant over his wife. Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God's creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other.

The footnotes do not link for the above quotation, but here they are. (Since I started this process, it would delay significantly if I tried to fix this,a nd I don't know if it is even possible. Unfortunately, the Hebrew words are also not displaying correctly.)

Popup
See R. Bergmeier, “Zur Septuagintaubersetzung von Gen. 3:16,” ZAW 79 (1967) 77-79. Actually apostroph¥ occurs here and in Gen. 4:7, while epistroph¥ occurs in Cant. 7:10. G. W. H. Lampe (A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1961/1968]) lists for epistroph¥: (1) conversion (religious); (2) reform amendment; (3) correction; (4) conversion of inferior being to the attraction of a superior being (p. 536). For apostroph¥ Lampe (p. 214) lists: (1) turning away; (2) deterrent; (3) gift, contribution.

Popup
See S. T. Foh, “What Is the Woman's Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975) 376-83.

Popup
P. P. Saydon (“The Conative Imperfect in Hebrew,” VT 12 [1962] 124-26) applies a conative meaning (i.e., one that expresses not fact, but attempt or endeavor) to Gen. 3:15, “he will attack you in the head, and you will try to attack him in the heel.” There may be a similar conative imperfect here—“and he shall try to rule over you.” This meaning removes indicative force from yimšãl.

Jamison, Fausset, & Brown:
She [the woman] was doomed as a wife and mother, to suffer pain of body and distress of mind. From being the helpmeet of man and the partner of his affections, her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection.

Please see yet ANOTHER post for my comments on the above commentary quotations.

[Neto]

Some comments on the attached doc (previous post)
I didn't quote every commentary I have on Genesis. It is true that some take the word "desire" in a romantic sense. I do not think this is correct for several reasons. First, the context is the curse of sin that has been brought on mankind by this sin of disobedience on the part of Adam & Eve. It doesn't make sense to throw in this great benefit of having sinned - that the wife will now desire her husband. (Although one might say that the curse in this is that while she has this desire toward him, he will not respond in the same way, but will "rule over her". But some commentaries also say that this "rule over her" means "he will be the same", that is, that they will now both desire to be with one another. That sounds like a blessing to me, not a curse at all.)

Hamilton points out that this word 'desire' is the same word as is used when God tells Cain that "Sin is at the door, desiring to rule over you". This is also the way I translated this text in chapter 3 for the Banawa; that God tells Eve: "You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." That is not headship - that is domination. (The Wycliffe policy is that all Scripture translations, even condensed versions like the one we did for the 5 books of Moses, must go through the full consultant checking process. The consultant who checked this book for me, a woman, by the way, did not even mention that I had chosen this interpretation.)

Of course, commentaries are not always right, and there is an example of this in the quotation from Jamison, Faucet, & Brown. The word "helpmeet" (Ge. 2:20) is not a real word. 'Meet' is a verb, not part of a noun. It means 'fit', as it is rendered in some translations (including NIV, as I recall), or suitable' (as rendered in the NASB). As I understand, it means something like 'opposite', or 'facing' you. The woman was to fulfill the missing part of the man, the lack of which Adam had already realized. This intention of God was ruined by sin, and the wife's biggest temptation is now to exercise control over her husband, and the tendency of the husband is to dominate her. This is the 'total loss' of the Filme Noir.

Regarding 1 Cor 11:
I don't really think that this text is primarily "about" headship. I think it is about proper or God-honoring conduct in corporate worship and prayer. I think that the teaching on the veiled woman's head, and the unveiled man's head is the main topic, not a supporting point for something else. Headship is clearly taught elsewhere, where it is the main topic, and it is true that this text provides additional teaching about it, some things which are not so clearly stated anywhere else. But I believe that the veiled/unveiled head teaching is here simply presented as something to be obeyed, as a primary doctrine, and headship is here used as a supporting doctrine, as a proof of the rightness of the veiled/unveiled heads of women & men respectively. But I also know that I am probably in the minority in this understanding of the text.
(Incidentally, the first time I heard teaching on the veiling was in Theology class at St. Paul Bible College - now Crown College, run by the Christian & Missionary Alliance. The professor was Dr. Daniel Goldberg, a Christian Jew. But I was not willing to 'hear' it at that time. It was another 2 years until I was willing to obey - in my case, to cut off my long hair.)

Our pastor continued his series on I Cor 11 yesterday, and I wrote up some more comments/research about 11:15 "covering" as referencing the woman's long hair. But I suppose that is off-topic here, maybe I'm already "post-bombing" this thread. (But I underlined the part of the above where I feel it strongly intersects with the topic of this thread.)

[Szdfan]

I've been in conversation with conservative Mennos and ex-conservative Mennos who are either questioning or rejecting these teachings because the harm it's caused in their own lives. I think that any kind of rigid order can easily be abused or misused. Even in the best cases, this teaching has a tendency to infantilize women and elevate men into "headship" who may not be competent or suitable for the role.

If men pay attention to the words directed to them, and women pay attention to the words directed to them, I think this can be a very healthy teaching.

A lot of the problem comes in when the man insists that his wife submit to him, instead of doing what he is told - loving her, being considerate. And al of this is in the context of submitting one to the other, throughout the church.

Sure and I don't dispute that...I just find that there is a wide gap between the ideal and often the reality.

[Bootstrap]

Sure and I don't dispute that...I just find that there is a wide gap between the ideal and often the reality.

I feel that way about most things the Bible teaches ...